You literally read what you want to read. The poster you responded to, was responding to a statement that the Blues and Kings would be better off with Karlsson, which is ridiculous on both ends, and it has nothing to do with who is better, but the styles of each player and the competition they have to go against.
It is determined by simply watching each player actually play. The West is more physical against the West. Being physical or having the size to deal with physicality is better suited for teams in the West. The East is typically more offensive, which is why having the best pure offensive defenseman would be better for the Senators.
It just so happens that each defenseman in question is with the best team for them to succeed. LA looks to physically dominate; St. Louis plays a disciplined, technical, and organized game; and Ottawa plays an offensive game. Each player has the exact abilities of their team's style.
And stop using team stats to prove an individual, especially team shots to prove an individual's offensive performance.
Actually i think Karlsson would bring a nice new element to Blues, would probably help Blues transition and offense tremendously.
You literally read what you want to read. The poster you responded to, was responding to a statement that the Blues and Kings would be better off with Karlsson, which is ridiculous on both ends, and it has nothing to do with who is better, but the styles of each player and the competition they have to go against.
Buddy, I don't read what I want to read, I read what I read, and I bold what I'm responding to - as I did in my post.
Quote:
Pietrangelo's numbers in the Sen's run and gun system go up (offensive system/much better shooters), not quite to Karlsson's this past year but he also vastly improves Sen's defense.
And don't start with me about how much better Karlsson would be defensively on the Blues. While you can judge offense ability just like you would defensive ability---by watching the player play, offense is also highly judged by numbers alone. THERE ARE NO ASSISTS (or for that matter second assists) WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENSE. A PLAYER'S DEFENSIVE PROWESS IS HIS ALONE AND IS NOT HELPED OUT BY OTHER PLAYERS ASSISTING.
I don't care what he was responding to, or what the rest of his post contained, I chose to respond to the part that I felt (read: know) was incorrect.
Quote:
And stop using team stats to prove an individual, especially team shots to prove an individual's offensive performance.
What I did was use team states to show that St. Louis systematically allows significantly less goals (without Pietrangelo on the ice) than Ottawa does (without Karlsson on the ice) suggesting that systematically St. Louis allows less goals than Ottawa, and if Karlsson were to play on St. Louis, it is extremely highly probable that he would allow significantly less goals and thus appear better defensively.
The same conclusion could be drawn (though not as significantly - though 17% is still a lot) with regards to shots against.
Karlsson would most certainly look better defensively in St. Louis than in Ottawa, that is what I am saying, and the numbers heavily support it.
You literally read what you want to read. The poster you responded to, was responding to a statement that the Blues and Kings would be better off with Karlsson, which is ridiculous on both ends, and it has nothing to do with who is better, but the styles of each player and the competition they have to go against.
It is determined by simply watching each player actually play. The West is more physical against the West. Being physical or having the size to deal with physicality is better suited for teams in the West. The East is typically more offensive, which is why having the best pure offensive defenseman would be better for the Senators.
It just so happens that each defenseman in question is with the best team for them to succeed. LA looks to physically dominate; St. Louis plays a disciplined, technical, and organized game; and Ottawa plays an offensive game. Each player has the exact abilities of their team's style.
And stop using team stats to prove an individual, especially team shots to prove an individual's offensive performance.
Karlsson does perfectly fine against defensive teams:
vs NYR: 4GP, 5P +5
vs NSH, STL, NYR, BOS: 12GP 11p +3
vs the top third teams in the league(regular season): 26GP 27p +3
and Karlsson doesn't get hit very often. He's so small and shifty that you can't really do much. Physicality isn't the answer.
Meanwhile:
Doughty vs. NSH, STL, NYR, BOS: 7GP 4p -6
Doughty vs the top third teams in the league: 21GP 9p -7
Pietrangelo vs. NSH, LA, NYR, BOS: 12GP 2p +0
Pietrangelo vs the top third teams in the league: 28GP 5p +1
Doughty and Pietrangelo were complete no-shows against better teams. You can probably give Karlsson an extra couple +'s because of how NHL.com penalizes players who play PP. (You get a - if you are on the ice for a PPGA, but you can't get a +)
Last edited by Twilight Sparkle: 10-31-2012 at 02:45 PM.
Buddy, I don't read what I want to read, I read what I read, and I bold what I'm responding to - as I did in my post.
I don't care what he was responding to, or what the rest of his post contained, I chose to respond to the part that I felt (read: know) was incorrect.
What I did was use team states to show that St. Louis systematically allows significantly less goals (without Pietrangelo on the ice) than Ottawa does (without Karlsson on the ice) suggesting that systematically St. Louis allows less goals than Ottawa, and if Karlsson were to play on St. Louis, it is extremely highly probable that he would allow significantly less goals and thus appear better defensively.
The same conclusion could be drawn (though not as significantly - though 17% is still a lot) with regards to shots against.
Karlsson would most certainly look better defensively in St. Louis than in Ottawa, that is what I am saying, and the numbers heavily support it.
Case closed.
So you need statistics to prove the simple fact that players look better defensively on defensive oriented teams? Any player would look better defensively if they played on a record setting defense. That is a simple fact that doesn't need statistics.
The funny thing is, that is not what the poster was saying. He was saying that Karlsson won't magically become better defensively if he plays on the Blues. Colaiacovo was still a horrible defender down the stretch and in the playoffs with us. I don't care what statistics say about Cola, there were times he cost us games.
The argument was never if Karlsson would look better with St. Louis or not. Karlsson's defensive ability would stay the same, he would just appear better because our defense broke records last season. Again, the argument was never how Karlsson would appear with us.
Karlsson does perfectly fine against defensive teams:
vs NYR: 4GP, 5P +5
vs NSH, STL, NYR, BOS 12GP 11p +3
and Karlsson doesn't get hit very often. He's so small and shifty that you can't really do much. Physicality isn't the answer.
I never said defensive teams, I said physical teams. Karlsson plays a similar style to Shattenkirk, just on a completely different level. That style of play is not suitable for playoff hockey in the West. Going up against LA in a 7 game series Karlsson would not be as effective as Pietrangelo would be for the Blues.
Like I said before, each player is with the best possible team for them to succeed.
The is a clear difference in the statistics between each player playing against the top teams. Doughty and Pietrangelo are expected to be defensive defensemen first against the top teams, and if they get points, it is just gravy. That is how defensive teams win. Karlsson is expected to score against the top teams, that is how offensive teams win. Great players on top teams don't put personal accolades before the team goal. You play to win the game, and the Kings and Blues win by playing great defense.
Last edited by bleedblue1223: 10-31-2012 at 02:58 PM.
So you need statistics to prove the simple fact that players look better defensively on defensive oriented teams? Any player would look better defensively if they played on a record setting defense. That is a simple fact that doesn't need statistics.
The funny thing is, that is not what the poster was saying. He was saying that Karlsson won't magically become better defensively if he plays on the Blues. Colaiacovo was still a horrible defender down the stretch and in the playoffs with us. I don't care what statistics say about Cola, there were times he cost us games.
The argument was never if Karlsson would look better with St. Louis or not. Karlsson's defensive ability would stay the same, he would just appear better because our defense broke records last season. Again, the argument was never how Karlsson would appear with us.
Sure, and Pietrangelo wouldn't be better offensively in Ottawa than he would be in St. Louis, he'd just look better. So I don't know why he brought it up at all then.
It seems we agree, it was a stupid thing for him to bring up. (It's pretty obvious he meant Karlsson wouldn't look better defensively while Pietrangelo would look better offensively btw, but I just humoured you for the sake of argument)
Sure, and Pietrangelo wouldn't be better offensively in Ottawa than he would be in St. Louis, he'd just look better. So I don't know why he brought it up at all then.
It seems we agree, it was a stupid thing for him to bring up.
You're still not fully understanding what he was saying. Production does not go with ability. Pietrangelo's offensive ability and Karlsson's defensive ability would stay the same, even though the statistics would change due to the system they'd be playing in.
Same thing with forwards and goalies. Change in production does not mean change in ability. Someone can produce less than someone else, but have a higher ability because they were in a worse situation. That is exactly what he was saying about Karlsson. He was talking about ability, not statistics.
Here's my take on if that trade went down: Karlsson gets on Hitch's bad side for being much worse defensively than Pietrangelo(notice Karlsson's name on HF's "defenseman defensively" poll? no? yeah neither do I), he doesn't fit in with our system, doesn't have an elite forward like Jason Spezza to actually put the puck in the net and his points take a huge hit just playing in the west in general.
I don't think an HF poll is an accurate reflection of Karlsson's defensive ability, considering most of HF doesn't consistently watch Karlsson play, and considering the tendency for posters to assume great offence can only be achieved by sacrificing defensive performance.
You are correct that Karlsson is not as well suited to Hitchcock's grinding, defensive system as Pietrangelo.
You are overstating the impact the western conference would have on Karlsson. You are overstating the impact of Ottawa's forwards in inflating Karlsson's perceived offensive ability.
Pietrangelo's numbers in the Sen's run and gun system go up (offensive system/much better shooters), not quite to Karlsson's this past year but he also vastly improves Sen's defense.
I disagree. Karlsson was the reason we could play a rush offence. He single-handedly dominated our breakout. Pietrangelo would not have that same impact. The system would adjust to be more conservative if you swap Karlsson for Pietrangelo. Moreover, I don't think Ottawa has better shooters than St. Louis, just that Spezza and Karlsson are such good playmakers that everybody else get more opportunities from high-scoring areas.
And don't start with me about how much better Karlsson would be defensively on the Blues. While you can judge offense ability just like you would defensive ability---by watching the player play, offense is also highly judged by numbers alone. THERE ARE NO ASSISTS (or for that matter second assists) WHEN IT COMES TO DEFENSE. A PLAYER'S DEFENSIVE PROWESS IS HIS ALONE AND IS NOT HELPED OUT BY OTHER PLAYERS ASSISTING.
We're going to assume offensive statistics are far more team-dependent than defensive statistics? Disagree with you there. All stats are abstractions and all of them are essentially equally likely to reflect a great individual play as they are a play enabled by the great play of teammates.
Who was Pietrangelo's partner this past season that made Pie's defense look sooo good? yes that's right Carlo freakin Coliacovo!
Neglecting the forwards entirely. St. Louis had arguably the best defensive forward corps in the league. The only real competition for that claim is LA. You'd be out of your mind to suggest a strong, defensive forward group doesn't make a defenceman's job a lot easier.
I'd also point out that you're neglecting that Karlsson played in a system and with teammates who were geared toward offence, rather than defensive play. His D partner? Filip Kuba. Hardly the defensive support that Pietrangelo received.
On the flipside who was helping contribute to Karlsson's offensive numbers? could it be...Jason Spezza? (I love how you Sens fans give him so little credit for fear of diminishing what Karlsson did lol)
Jason Spezza is clearly the best forward on either team, but I think St. Louis's depth is probably better than Ottawa's at this point. We aren't taking away from Spezza's individual talent; rather, we're giving credit to the fact that beyond Spezza (and arguably Michalek), Ottawa's forwards were essentially an aging Alfie and a bunch of unprovens. Who's more likely to have been the beneficiary of playing with the other, Colin Greening or Erik Karlsson?
If next season Karlsson's points drop because the Sen's goal scorers simply aren't putting the puck in the net, people are gonna be like WTF? What's wrong with Karlsson? And that's because many have only judged him by the numbers you see at the end of the season.
I think some in Ottawa are definitely focused far too much on his statistics. However, I think it's not fair to say his offensive abilities are being overrated based on the stats. Even without looking at the stats (eg empirically watching Karlsson play), he's arguably greatest breakout defenceman in the league today. He's easily in the discussion for best offensive player on the blueline, too. He makes teammates better, not the other way around.
Bolded my responses. I think that on the whole, people are greatly exaggerating the differences between these three players to try and establish that they are obviously the better option.
That goes for all three names and their supporters.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
I never said defensive teams, I said physical teams. Karlsson plays a similar style to Shattenkirk, just on a completely different level. That style of play is not suitable for playoff hockey in the West. Going up against LA in a 7 game series Karlsson would not be as effective as Pietrangelo would be for the Blues.
Like I said before, each player is with the best possible team for them to succeed.
The is a clear difference in the statistics between each player playing against the top teams. Doughty and Pietrangelo are expected to be defensive defensemen first against the top teams, and if they get points, it is just gravy. That is how defensive teams win. Karlsson is expected to score against the top teams, that is how offensive teams win. Great players on top teams don't put personal accolades before the team goal. You play to win the game, and the Kings and Blues win by playing great defense.
Bolded my responses. I think that on the whole, people are greatly exaggerating the differences between these three players to try and establish that they are obviously the better option.
That goes for all three names and their supporters.
Well yeah, that's just it.
Lets start making polls with players who are obviously better/worse than each other. The crap spewed in these threads is always the same. Pick 3 players that are of negligible difference in value, but argue like they do.
You're still not fully understanding what he was saying. Production does not go with ability. Pietrangelo's offensive ability and Karlsson's defensive ability would stay the same, even though the statistics would change due to the system they'd be playing in.
I understand perfectly what you're saying he said. If that's in fact what he meant, it's a stupid thing to bring up. How does bringing that up hold any relevance in the discussion? Why not tell me the sky is blue while you're at it?
It's clearly not what he meant given the fact that he mentioned Pietrangelo's points would go up but specifically failed to mention that Karlsson's defensive statistics would also go up (and even went on to say that he wouldn't be better defensively). He was very clearly saying that Karlsson's defensive numbers wouldn't improve in the switch but that Pietrangelo's would.
Which is wrong.
If he was saying what you are saying he said (which no one but you seems to think he was) then it's a stupid thing to bring up as it holds no relevance in the discussion.
I understand perfectly what you're saying he said. If that's in fact what he meant, it's a stupid thing to bring up. How does bringing that up hold any relevance in the discussion? Why not tell me the sky is blue while you're at it?
It's clearly not what he meant given the fact that he mentioned Pietrangelo's points would go up but specifically failed to mention that Karlsson's defensive statistics would also go up (and even went on to say that he wouldn't be better defensively). He was very clearly saying that Karlsson's defensive numbers wouldn't improve in the switch but that Pietrangelo's would.
Which is wrong.
If he was saying what you are saying he said (which no one but you seems to think he was) then it's a stupid thing to bring up as it holds no relevance in the discussion.
Both player's statistics would go up, but that just proves you shouldn't use statistics to make a case, so you just disproved about every argument that you make on here. Statistics have so many unaccounted variables, and they shouldn't be used as a main argument. Most of us here are big hockey fans and watch a lot of hockey. We don't need to go all ESPN and spew useless stats at each other.
Comparing statistics, even advanced statistics, you are assuming that sports is linear, which it isn't. We have no idea what Karlsson or Pietrangelo would do on another team or another system. We know that they would still be really good, but who knows how much their production would change or if it would even change at all.
It can be argued that Kovalchuk is now a better played with Jersey and that Hull was more effective in Dallas, despite statistics stating the opposite.
Both player's statistics would go up, but that just proves you shouldn't use statistics to make a case, so you just disproved about every argument that you make on here. Statistics have so many unaccounted variables, and they shouldn't be used as a main argument. Most of us here are big hockey fans and watch a lot of hockey. We don't need to go all ESPN and spew useless stats at each other.
Comparing statistics, even advanced statistics, you are assuming that sports is linear, which it isn't. We have no idea what Karlsson or Pietrangelo would do on another team or another system. We know that they would still be really good, but who knows how much their production would change or if it would even change at all.
It can be argued that Kovalchuk is now a better played with Jersey and that Hull was more effective in Dallas, despite statistics stating the opposite.
One could argue they are pretty much the same player, just perceived to be better. If Pietro went to Tampa, and got record breaking bad goaltending performance, bad team defence he would have been perceived as " regressed " even if his performance woulnd have changed. I think the same thing happened to Kovalchuk, he is used differently, has better support which is why people suddenly say he has "improved".
One could argue they are pretty much the same player, just perceived to be better. If Pietro went to Tampa, and got record breaking bad goaltending performance, bad team defence he would have been perceived as " regressed " even if his performance woulnd have changed. I think the same thing happened to Kovalchuk, he is used differently, has better support which is why people suddenly say he has "improved".
Another reason why statistics is a horrible way of making an argument.
Most of us here are big hockey fans and watch a lot of hockey. We don't need to go all ESPN and spew useless stats at each other.
Most HFBoards posters do watch a lot of hockey. However, how many games do they watch that aren't of their favourite team, and how many games do they focus solely on one player? It's retardedly easy to miss how well/poorly an individual player is doing if you watch hockey the normal way (which is to focus on the action). If anything I'd say "seen 'em good" is significantly less reliable than statistics, because you're going off of a pair of unprofessional eyes that are watching primarily for entertainment's sake, while the numbers (while flawed) at least provide aggregate impressions of various actions that take place in a given setting.
That's not to speak of how common it is to drink while watching sports (even a few beer throughout a game are going to decrease your perceptive abilities.
Both player's statistics would go up, but that just proves you shouldn't use statistics to make a case, so you just disproved about every argument that you make on here. Statistics have so many unaccounted variables, and they shouldn't be used as a main argument. Most of us here are big hockey fans and watch a lot of hockey. We don't need to go all ESPN and spew useless stats at each other.
Comparing statistics, even advanced statistics, you are assuming that sports is linear, which it isn't. We have no idea what Karlsson or Pietrangelo would do on another team or another system. We know that they would still be really good, but who knows how much their production would change or if it would even change at all.
It can be argued that Kovalchuk is now a better played with Jersey and that Hull was more effective in Dallas, despite statistics stating the opposite.
I don't agree. I do believe the statistics would accurately reflect what you see with your eyes.
If Karlsson played in St. Louis he would look better defensively: the statistics would show it.
If Pietrangelo played in Ottawa he would look better offensively: the statistics would show it.
Don't see why you have such a hate-on for the numbers. I'm not advocating blindly using statistics and not watching the games, but your excusing of statistics in their ability to supplement your assessment of a player confuses me.
Especially because we can't watch all 1,230 games.
But regardless, we are very off-topic, the point is what that poster said was either irrelevant or wrong depending on your interpretation of what he meant.
My view of statistics is that you can manipulate them to say what you want. People think they are objective, but you are able to twist and turn statistics to show what you want. These thoughts are from one of the greatest baseball managers of all-time, Tony La Russa.
Each of these players are all in the elite category and statistics really won't differentiate each player. Each players has their own style, which is really the only deciding factor when picking between the bunch. Doughty likes to physically dominate; Pietrangelo plays a technical, organized, and disciplined game; while Karlsson's game is about speed and pure offense.
With those drastic differences in styles, it is nearly impossible to directly compare the 3 despite them playing the same position, which is why these "discussions" never end well.
My view of statistics is that you can manipulate them to say what you want. People think they are objective, but you are able to twist and turn statistics to show what you want. These thoughts are from one of the greatest baseball managers of all-time, Tony La Russa.
Each of these players are all in the elite category and statistics really won't differentiate each player. Each players has their own style, which is really the only deciding factor when picking between the bunch. Doughty likes to physically dominate; Pietrangelo plays a technical, organized, and disciplined game; while Karlsson's game is about speed and pure offense.
With those drastic differences in styles, it is nearly impossible to directly compare the 3 despite them playing the same position, which is why these "discussions" never end well.
I woulnd call it pure offence. Breakout from the zone cleanly and in posession is one of the most important skills for defenceman, and one of the main problems what teams have. And Karlsson is one of the best in the league doing that, so that part of his defensive game is superb. That skill was one of the main points why Kings did have such great playoffs ( Doughty ).
I'm not really sure why this is even a debate. Karlsson won the Norris. Pietrangelo was fourth in voting with NO first place votes and only 7 second place votes. Doughty didn't even get a single fifth place Norris vote.
Yes Doughty had a good run in the playoffs but a hot streak of games doesn't make up for a mediocre regular season.
Doughty and Pietrangelo are good young defencemen, but they don't control a game which Karlsson does. And Karlsson has improved by leaps and bounds each season. Who knows how much better he'll be the next time the NHL decides to have a season?
I'm not really sure why this is even a debate. Karlsson won the Norris. Pietrangelo was fourth in voting with NO first place votes and only 7 second place votes. Doughty didn't even get a single fifth place Norris vote.
Yes Doughty had a good run in the playoffs but a hot streak of games doesn't make up for a mediocre regular season.
Doughty and Pietrangelo are good young defencemen, but they don't control a game which Karlsson does. And Karlsson has improved by leaps and bounds each season. Who knows how much better he'll be the next time the NHL decides to have a season?
Doughty has had more than "a hot streak of games", don't you think? People were drooling all over him a couple years ago. Do you feel he has peaked at 22?
